Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Mon Nov 17 09:10:21 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAHHAKmg004195 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:10:20 -0800 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAHH6q4B024632 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:06:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200811171706.mAHH6q4B024632@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Search Response Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:06:52 -0800 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > I have a doubt in the search response. > Do we also search for the search type in the files that are in cache? or > is it only done for permanent files ? All files! > If we consider searching in the cache, then should we have a separate > indexes for files in cache or should we just add them to the existing > structures? You should not use a different data structure for cache and permanent storage! Whether a file is in the cache or in permanent storage is conceptually an one-bit attribute of the file. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu